count2infinity wrote:I think the whole point of the article is to not compare anything to anything. Make all the schools equal (give them all the same funding and opportunity) and there'd be no need to compare anything. But that's socialism and 'Merica hates socialism!

Equal money and equal opportunity (even more money for poor districts) would not equal better educational records and results. Just tossing money at a situation never actually resolves anything.

Just as an example West Virginia spends the 18th-most per student yet consistently ranks dead last or next-to-last. Florida on the other hand spends the 43rd-most per student yet places in-or-near the Top 10.

count2infinity wrote:I think the whole point of the article is to not compare anything to anything. Make all the schools equal (give them all the same funding and opportunity) and there'd be no need to compare anything. But that's socialism and 'Merica hates socialism!

Equal money and equal opportunity (even more money for poor districts) would not equal better educational records and results. Just tossing money at a situation never actually resolves anything.

Just as an example West Virginia spends the 18th-most per student yet consistently ranks dead last or next-to-last. Florida on the other hand spends the 43rd-most per student yet places in-or-near the Top 10.

according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Absolutely, as they should. It is a demonstrable fact that the quality and content of education has dropped since the creation of the Federal department. Return education to the States and local municipalities where common sense solutions to the massive differences between districts can be handled by each and every local district and you will see an improvement in both the quality and the content of education across the board.

count2infinity wrote:according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Money buys resources which poorer communities don't have that facilitate more and better ways of learning.

ulf wrote:I disagree that smarter students get more help. I graduated 5 years ago and was one of the "smarter"kids. Nothing about high school was challenging at all. I felt like teachers focused on the kids that weren't likely to get proficient on the PSSAs.

All districts are different, but in most you've got a separate set of classes for the "smartest" kids (now how effective and challenging those classes are differs) and a separate setting or classes or level of help for the "lowest" kids. For the 80% in the middle there's not a whole lot. I think we need to start focusing on that middle section so that they can be pushed to higher levels. Making education more individualized is the best way to do this.

Oh, the middle section is certainly being concentrated on at many schools with these standardized tests. why? here's the mindset that a lot of teachers have: the upper level kids are going to pass it, don't worry about them. the lower level kids aren't going to pass it, don't worry about them. concentrate on those borderline students.

I don't agree with the mindset at all, but unfortunately a lot of teachers and administrators feel that way.

You're right, but focusing on helping kids pass a test isn't the same as focusing on teaching them. I was thinking of it that way... That those middle kids don't get as much beneficial instruction.

count2infinity wrote:according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Money buys resources which poorer communities don't have that facilitate more and better ways of learning.

count2infinity wrote:according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Money buys resources which poorer communities don't have that facilitate more and better ways of learning.

Define "better ways".

Well given that standing in front children and lecturing is the least effective way to teach. Having more resources allows teachers to tap into many more intelligences and facilitates learning in that way. Which is proven to be better than lecture.

count2infinity wrote:according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Money buys resources which poorer communities don't have that facilitate more and better ways of learning.

Define "better ways".

Well given that standing in front children and lecturing is the least effective way to teach. Having more resources allows teachers to tap into many more intelligences and facilitates learning in that way. Which is proven to be better than lecture.

FOR SOME... i hate when people throw a blanket over every student and say this is the best way or this is the worst way to teach. I personally learned best from lectures rather than all the fancy stuff and I know that there are others out there as well that learn best that way. That is why I found it important in class to try as many different ways to present material as possible because each student learns differently.

count2infinity wrote:according to what? I mean I understand that throwing money at the situation is not the way to solve problems. I went to a school that out of the 501 school districts in the state ranked 500th in $ spent per student. The school board member announced that to us at our graduation and I'll never forget it. Money doesn't necessarily dictate a better education it's about the teachers, it's about the student, it's about the parents, it's about a lot of things. But again, the article is calling for a stop to the comparing non-sense and the testing non-sense. Why try to be competitive rather than cooperative?

Money buys resources which poorer communities don't have that facilitate more and better ways of learning.

Define "better ways".

Well given that standing in front children and lecturing is the least effective way to teach. Having more resources allows teachers to tap into many more intelligences and facilitates learning in that way. Which is proven to be better than lecture.

FOR SOME... i hate when people throw a blanket over every student and say this is the best way or this is the worst way to teach. I personally learned best from lectures rather than all the fancy stuff and I know that there are others out there as well that learn best that way. That is why I found it important in class to try as many different ways to present material as possible because each student learns differently.

Actually straight lecture is found to be extremely poor in educating students. I'd wager that even in your school life you didn't learn from straight lecture. There was most likely modeling, guided practice, and independent practice. For example in a math class when children are learning to add. It is first explained and demonstrated, then the students get to practice with the teachers help, then they have homework. To get upset and say you learned strictly from lecture is almost always a fallacy. Because strict lecture would involve only listening without actually attempting the skill being taught until the test.

I suppose what I find as being lecture (good lecturing) include modeling, and other things. I honestly learned best from that "traditional" method of teaching. And that's one of the things I used most in my classroom mostly because I was confident in it and the students could feel that confidence. The whole integration of technology and whatnot is fine for some, but I learned best with that traditional method and often became frustrated with the alternate ways teachers would present material. Also for those heading to college should get used the the traditional lecture because that's what they're going to get in college in most cases. Obviously your definition of lecture and my definition of lecture are different from one another.

count2infinity wrote:I suppose what I find as being lecture (good lecturing) include modeling, and other things. I honestly learned best from that "traditional" method of teaching. And that's one of the things I used most in my classroom mostly because I was confident in it and the students could feel that confidence. The whole integration of technology and whatnot is fine for some, but I learned best with that traditional method and often became frustrated with the alternate ways teachers would present material. Also for those heading to college should get used the the traditional lecture because that's what they're going to get in college in most cases. Obviously your definition of lecture and my definition of lecture are different from one another.

Right, it seems you actually enjoyed your job and I'd wager that you didn't straight lecture and blended other methods into your lessons. Which is what should be done. Having money to get resources allows educators to teach in the way they are confident while also including other methods. Again from what you said above that seems to be what you did. I'm not saying don't lecture but simply talking at the children isn't very effective. I didn't mean to make you think I'm blanketing because I'm not as one part of the multiple intelligence theory does include the linguistic learner which would include lecture but to say that, "I learned best through lecture and so should they." Isn't right as even learners in that style require more than simply being talked to.

On the original statement of, "defining better" it is also proven that students learn better and retain more (learn to mastery) when allowed to discover the knowledge on their own and teach it to each other through methods provided by the teacher. Good funding allows teachers to provide and use those methods that are most effective for each individual student which is extremely hard to do in the AYP (all yall passin ) focused bureaucracy of education.

Point Breeze Penguins wrote:One of the reasons why education should be primarily about teaching folks how to learn and how to teach themselves.

I agree on the how to learn but the teach themselves aspect I don't agree with. If we're preparing them for later in life, group activities are the way to go. Very few jobs in the real world involve working by yourself and the vast majority of them involve working within a team or interacting with co-workers to accomplish goals everyday.

Point Breeze Penguins wrote:Nothing about "working with a team" precludes you from teaching yourself.

What do you even mean by teaching yourself?

"Teaching yourself" seems like a pretty straight-forward concept. But if I had to define it I would say being able to educate yourself about x without outside help.

For example, say you work at an office and are given new software. "Teaching yourself" would mean being able to learn and execute the new software without having to ask 14 different people how it works.

Point Breeze Penguins wrote:Nothing about "working with a team" precludes you from teaching yourself.

What do you even mean by teaching yourself?

"Teaching yourself" seems like a pretty straight-forward concept. But if I had to define it I would say being able to educate yourself about x without outside help.

For example, say you work at an office and are given new software. "Teaching yourself" would mean being able to learn and execute the new software without having to ask 14 different people how it works.

In what way is that a good strategy for anyone? That would lead to loss of production and cost companies more money. Teaching yourself isn't a very good concept for the real world or school especially for example middle school children who are transitioning into understanding abstract thought. To tell them to teach themselves would be disastrous. Heck if you really believe in teaching themselves there would be no need for schools at all.